Rendezvous in Rome

When the mountain refused to come to Darragh MacIntyre, he went to it. When he reached it he out scaled Mount Arrogant and shone a light down upon it. It was not a pretty sight. The men hiding behind the burning bush these days have one commandment: ‘silence.’ As much as they would love to command MacIntyre to shut up he was not some abused child who could be terrified into silence by stern faced interrogators in black compelling him to swear on some holy book.

Brendan Boland was the 14 year old victim of one of many serial rapists operating within Church ranks when Church authorities decided that the best way of neutralising him was to isolate him from the security of his father, put him in a room with men who were colleagues of the priest who had raped him, outnumbering him with interrogators.  I remember when I was questioned by the RUC in 1974 I chanced my arm and asked for a parent to be to be present. I was amazed when they acceded to my request without hesitation. Seems even they had more concern for Catholic teenagers than the Church.

The Church conspiracy to silence Brendan Boland resulted in a persistent offender being ordained to carry on in his rape vocation totally unhindered. In short, senior Catholic clerics had a rapist in their midst whom they knew about and did nothing to compel him to desist.  When questioned in 1975 by Church figures including the current cardinal Sean Brady, Brendan Boland gave his interrogators the names and addresses of children that Smith was already abusing or posed a potentially serious risk to. Only one of these people was subsequently spoken to by the hierarchy. He confirmed what Brendan Boland had told his inquisitors.

Neither his parents nor the parents of the other people at risk were warned. Such was the need to protect power and reputation that truth was held within the grip of those least likely to do anything with it, other than to bury it. The information necessary for rape prevention was available and the Church failed to act on it. Protected by the Church’s complicity through silence Smith continued to abuse 'John', his sister and four cousins. It never even took the basic safety procedure of warning the teenager’s parents that he was at risk.

So it was a very poignant scene that confronted the viewer in MacIntyre’s documentary when Brendan Boland met up with John and told him ‘I thought I had saved you.’ That he had not saved him was down to the clergy who knew about Smith but preferred to save the ‘good name’ of Mother Church and not the children its officials raped.  Smith raped children because the Church did nothing to prevent him raping children and created the circumstances in which he could continue raping children.

Sean Brady, who swore Brendan Bolan to secrecy, was a teacher who held a doctorate in canon law. Today he insists his function was that of a notary, which because it closely enough resembles the term note, allows him to put the inflection ‘note taker’ on it. This minimises his role, distancing him from any investigatory responsibility, as if he was performing the role of a court stenographer with absolutely no responsibility outside of his function on the day, and with no input into the decision making process.  Fr Thomas Doyle, an expert in canon law disputed this interpretation. In his eye Brady’s handling of the matter was completely inadequate. To claim, as he does, that he only did his job and passed the matter up the line, Doyle found a threadbare defence. He stated that it was criminal behaviour for Brady and the bishops not to have done anything about it. Strong stuff from a fellow priest.  It strikes a chord in a way that Brady’s account does not.

Darragh MacIntyre pursued Sean Brady to Rome. The cardinal who appeared to want to give an explanation nevertheless allowed himself to be shuttled out of range by a minder, prompting MacIntyre to angrily comment that the cardinal was deliberately, wilfully refusing to take responsibility for his actions, or inactions, which left children exposed to abuse.

Charles Sciculna ‘promoter of justice’ for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said on the documentary that the response by the Church to disclosures such as those made about Smith should be immediate and effective. Par for the course he sidestepped the question of Brady’s resignation. Incredibly he claimed he would not give his opinion on it despite earlier in the course of the same interview pontificated that the culture of silence was the enemy of truth of justice.

Whether he chooses to resign or not it seems indisputable that Sean Brady is a gravely weakened leader. He has lost his moral authority, as many staunch defenders of the church distance themselves from them having at last come to recognise his liability status. They range from Vincent Twomey to David Quinn. They are not prepared to stand over his actions in 1975.

Yet what is perhaps more instructive than the events of 1975 are those of 2012. Almost 40 years ago the culture of Catholicism, uninformed by and much more impervious to the culture of secular dissent that abounds today, may have made it possible for Sean Brady to think he had behaved at least procedurally correctly. He did not exist in a vacuum and lived and breathed the institutional culture of his day, being guided by the anonymous pressure of the group. If that is an extenuating circumstance, it is hopelessly negated by events of today where he simply refuses to publicly apologise to Brendan Boland. It reeks of arrogance: a prince of the church apologise to a pauper of the streets; never, never, never.

His refusal to resign indicts him less than his refusal to apologise.

103 comments:

  1. Fuck resigning Anthony,he should be hauled before the courts,the man and his fellow clergy who knew about Smith and probably many others, by their inaction on this horrendous affair became facilitators,and therefore almost as guilty as that scumbag Smith and the others,had none of this been made public you can bet your arse that those bastards would still be free today to carry on their vile rapes, and Brady and the rest of those men of god would have said sweet fuck all,

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brady and cannon law now theres a thought,stick the bastard down a cannon and send him back to Benny the bad...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good article AM but I don’t understand the need for Sean Brady to resign, what exactly did he do wrong, as he has explained many times he carried out orders plain and simple, By resigning he will be a scapegoat for cult he plays a really big part in.
    I watch and listen in amazement at Brady when being interviewed, its unbelievable this guy is allowed to come into our living rooms and tell us he done exactly what the church rules allowed him to do and he could do nothing more.
    This man interviewed a 14 year old child, demanded his father stay in another room, along with 2 other men dressed in black about sexual abuse carried out on the child by another man dressed in black and made him sign a piece of paper telling him to shut his mouth forever.
    That folks is apparently the rules of his holy Catholic church, that is how they deal with people who can be a threat to them, Brady knew if he done the right human deed in 1975 he would have been shunned and no chance of him becoming Cardinal in the future, so he wasn’t going let Brendan Boland get in his way.
    This is not some dummy who sat taking notes; he was the head honcho who was totalling in charge of the meeting. This guy should not resign he should be interviewed by the proper state authorities not the illegal kangaroo court system the catholic church demand we acknowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brady should be hauled before the courts..Cut and dried as far as I'm concerned.

    Only the seriousness of the crime this article could be funny...(It's about the present pope covering up)

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/pope-led-coverup-of-child-abuse-by-priests-7220621.html

    Part reads like this..

    Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal

    I know a few priests who are good, decent 'sound' people..but the Catholic church is on the whole rotten to the very core..

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Boyne Rover are you serious...? Do you actually belive what you wrote? How can any right minded person even try to justify Brady is beyond me....

    Even today on RTE Brady admited he was wrong then...

    As you correctly pointed out he was no dummy...And to keep stump just to further his career is wrong by any standards...

    ReplyDelete
  6. the victim was not important. careers and publicity were the main issue. still are.

    they are facilitators because they made no attempt to remove known rapists from the church. they assisted them instead of giving them a 1 way ticket and instruction never to return or the police would be involved.

    simple, 'educated' men of 'zod' put child rapists before all else. GO FIGURE!

    ReplyDelete
  7. One reason I dont go to church...because I can think of better ways to occupy my time than spending 52 hours a year listening to a paedophile talk about his imaginary friend

    ReplyDelete
  8. Frankie
    I do believe what I wrote for its all true read the whole of the post, once again I will write,Brady done nothing wrong in the eyes of the catholic church and in their minds nothing else counts,if they are happy with him then why resign.Maybe the catholic church should come clean and tell the whole truth better idea me thinks

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stiil can't buy into your line of thought Boyne...

    What Brady & the Catholic church kept quiet about was wrong in anyway, anybody tries to gloss over it.

    What is more important furthering a career or protecting innocent people. A few posts/threads back, Anthony made a post about children being inocent in wars..Same logic applies here. Kids are innocent and because they are in a vunerable position doesn't mean they should be exploited.

    Not only should Brady be hauled before the courts, so should the other priests involved...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Frankie
    I completely believe if Brady resigns it will be another coup for the church, Brady will be thrown to the wolves and the church will then continue on its merry way making sure their dirty little secret remains so. I would leave Brady in place and make him answerable if he gets out we will never see him again. My belief Frankie is that Brady was carrying out orders from on high.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Boyne Rover,

    'My belief Frankie is that Brady was carrying out orders from on high.'

    Would you care to explain this, for those of us a little slow on the uptake?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marty,

    Until there is some Nuremburg type trial of these people for crimes against humanity as suggested by Geoffrey Robertson, this or that resignation is meaningless. What makes it worse is that I believe Brady actually thought in 75 he did no wrong, such was the warped dysfunctional culture he operated in. This means the institutional culture of the Church is entirely wrong. Changing the man or jailing him will not do that. I don’t argue for his prosecution on the grounds that I think it a limited move.

    The Irish Catholic Church is a perverse institution and society should register its disapproval by banning it.
    What makes it worse for Brady is that today with the benefit of hindsight and being informed by changing cultural and intellectual climes he is still insisting that he did nothing wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AM,

    ‘The Irish Catholic Church is a perverse institution and society should register its disapproval by banning it.’

    I see nine Moslems living in Britain were just found guilty of grooming white ‘Christian’ girls. Do you think Islam should be banned? Do you think that Islam has a better record than the Catholic Church? Or is it just ‘Catholic’ abuse that you disapprove of?

    'What makes it worse for Brady is that today with the benefit of hindsight and being informed by changing cultural and intellectual climes he is still insisting that he did nothing wrong.'

    Could you tell us what wrong he did? I am not aware he did any wrong, but I am not a fan of his, so I am happy to change my view if you show that he did wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. brady is protecting his 'sainthood' after 75 yrs he no doubt also believes he deserves it....and fuck everyone else... literally..'almost'.

    ReplyDelete
  15. John..I'll tell you where Brady's agruement falls apart. Brady states he did nothing wrong. He also says he was only a note taker..Then why was he sent to investigate the claims of child abuse..He was also a teacher as well as priest. In both lines of work one of their main aims is to protect children.

    Where the catholic church's stance is seriously called into question is they (catholic church) very quickly censored Fr D'arcy for questioning the view on the churchs stance to women being ordained..gay priests etc. But covered but a human rights abuse on children on a massive scale.

    On your point about the the child sex ring carried out by muslims in the north east of England. They are no better than the catholic church scandal. And the police have a lot of questions to answer. They could have acted a lot sooner but were afraid because they (police) didn't want to branded as racist!

    Apart from Islam (like most religions) being a bastardisation of several religions. It allows for forced marriages, less rights for women..There are lots of cases where if a woman is raped she is forced to marry the rapist, just to keep the family name from being tarnished. You could also make an arguement that the founder of Islam was a paedophile..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

    Aisha stayed in her parents' home for several years until she joined Muhammad and the marriage was consummated. Most of the sources indicate that she was nine years old at the time, with the single exception of al-Tabari, who records that she was ten.[8] The sources do not offer much more information about Aisha's childhood years, but mention that after the wedding, she continued to play with her toys, and that Muhammad entered into the spirit of these games

    Just what games was he really playing? Doctors and Nurses...


    Should religion be banded. No, people should be allowed to believe what they want and as long as what they practise doesn't infringe on anybodys basic human rights then in my eyes there is no harm done. But tighter controls need to be put in place and the strangle hold various religions have over education has to be re-examined and lessened.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Frankie,

    It is my understanding that Brady would not have been allowed to speak up due to the process of canon law being ongoing. If that is the case, then I don’t see that he can be blamed for that, although it does open up other questions.

    As for the Catholic Church’s stance being called into question, it has long been my contention that the Vatican II Council led to a take-over of the liberal element within the Catholic Church. After that Council there was an abdication of authority on behalf of Rome and things spiralled out of control, doctrinally, liturgically and morally

    The reason that abuses happened is that the priests lost their faith, their morals went out the window, and the homosexual element among them, decided to prey on the vulnerable. That is why liberal priests like Fr D’Arcy have to be silenced, for they are fuelling the problem. You can’t stop priests abusing if you go around preaching that homosexuality is acceptable.

    That view might not be accepted by those on the PQ, but most serious Catholics know that this is the case. Indeed, the likes of Maynooth are regularly referred to as ‘Gaynooth’ and I wouldn’t trust anyone who had been corrupted in that sewer to do anything other than abuse children.

    As for what you wrote about Islam, I couldn’t agree more. Similar claims could be raised against Judaism and most other religions and non religious groups. Those who have abused in the Church are not the Catholic Church, but are renegades against it. A simple distinction that some of the PQers can’t seem to make. (Some like Larry probably can’t even spell PQ, let alone think).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Boyne Rover,

    I think he should resign as a matter of courtesy but you are absolutely right the strategic value of it in terms of child protection or genuine accountability is limited. I agree with you on the point of him not being cardinal today had he reported the matter to police. They would have marginalised him and cut him out of the promotion loop. Organised Catholicism is a fraud. Like all organised religions I guess. Joe Smith the Mormon guy actually organised a scam in front of them and still they formed a religion on the basis of it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. John a cara the last points you made,just strengthen my view that the sooner we dump religion as a whole then the sooner humanity can move forward in a positive way,it is not just a catholic thing,

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pity that dickhead couldnt rage against war full stop, rather than the human rights of his fellow man /woman.

    ReplyDelete
  20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc7EGoNYqXg

    I think this might be of significance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. John,

    I tried, really did. Got as far as 'living in sin' and 'fornication' and just gave up. He sounded too much like the televangelists of Hate TV. In this house if Hate TV comes on my youngest shouts 'the mad.' !!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Good man John, you know it doesn’t matter how much you shout some one else’s opinion nobody really cares.
    How about giving us your opinion instead of referring to what some one else said or wrote, Try giving us your thoughts it would be refreshing for us here on this wonderful cyber space medium

    ReplyDelete
  23. Boyne Rover,

    ‘Good man John, you know it doesn’t matter how much you shout some one else’s opinion nobody really cares.’

    Opinions are irrelevant.

    ‘How about giving us your opinion instead of referring to what some one else said or wrote,’

    What we need are not ‘opinions’ but ‘certainties’. An opinion is a position that implies that there is a doubt as to if it is true or not.

    I do not have an opinion that ‘gay marriage’ is wrong, I know it is, with absolute certainty. It is institutionalised sodomy, which is a revolting abomination that even nature cannot tolerate but repays with a variety of diseases such as AIDS.

    It is not my opinion that the glove is for the hand and not the foot, it is my ‘certainty’. You can keep putting your glove on your foot, following your opinion. I shall rest in my certainty that socks go on feet, gloves go on hands, It isn’t rocket science you know. Why not think outside the latest humanist fad?

    Try giving us your thoughts it would be refreshing for us here on this wonderful cyber space medium

    I do have opinions too, about things that don’t matter, vest or tee-shirt, striped socks or plain, etc. But I don’t think these would interest you. So, I tend to only post on matters about which we can have certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  24. John a cara is all religion not just an opinion?

    ReplyDelete
  25. john
    your pretty certain the catholic church is sound...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Probably a macho thing about being beaten by a team with a girl in it.where the f##k do you get this stuff a cara? ..has John melted yer head?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Marty,

    ‘John a cara is all religion not just an opinion?’

    No, Marty, absolutely not. Our reason can prove the existence of God, the existence of a spiritual soul, the freedom of our will and the necessity of religion. Then after that Christ has proved that He was the Messias by fulfilling the prophecies, made over several millennia before His birth. He healed the sick, made the blind see, brought the dead to life and rose from the dead, proving that He was the Son of God.

    The Catholic religion is entirely and only founded upon absolute certainty. It is those who deny this certainty, the likes of Hans Kung, Tony Flannery and Brian d’Arcy, who have caused confusion and allowed a situation to develop whereby an entire generation, or more, has been brought up in almost total ignorance of what the Church is.

    Larry,

    ‘your pretty certain the catholic church is sound...’

    Totally certain.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 'The school’s statement read, “Our school aims to instill in our boys a profound respect for women and girls. Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty."'

    Excellent school.
    Unfortunately for the SSPX, it likes like they are about to be sold out, in a GFA like agreement with modernist Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dont like that asshole Darcy either John,

    ReplyDelete
  30. John any man that can turn water into wine is bound to go down well in Ireland,

    ReplyDelete
  31. Marty,

    FFS don't mention 'going down' to John. Its not for procreation!

    ReplyDelete
  32. LOL Anthony I was bent over laughing at that oops...

    ReplyDelete
  33. wee boys must be for clerical reproduction huh??

    ReplyDelete
  34. Rendezvous in Rome

    I don’t think Islam should be banned nor do I think Catholicism should be banned. While I have time for neither religion I feel that the Catholic Church in Ireland should be banned because it as an institution has functioned as a rape cartel.

    Catholic belief should not be banned.

    As for the gang grooming the girls in England, if their role was comparable to that of the gangs of priests with the same institutional links and so on, of course ban whatever institution they belong to: and without hesitation. Why should something so vile and dangerous have a legal status? If their mullahs and imans were involved in the cover up and shuttling the rapists about why not ban them? I have not yet followed that case in any detail other than to save the big report from the Independent on it for future reading but are the perps church officials or just a gang of sexual predators and criminals? That does make a difference. No point in calling for the banning of the Catholic Church in Ireland on the basis that nine ‘Catholics’ sexually molested Protestant girls.

    One of the major problems with this case is that those who managed to scream ‘islamophobia’ so loudly have prevented the issue here being properly discussed. The cops claim to have backed off because of the PC brigade. Shameful for the cops. And the PC brigade has long been hostile to voices raised about abuses of women by characters addicted to Islam.

    What wrong did Brady do? Setting aside the commments made by Amnesty International on the criminal status of not reporting rape to the secular authorities in 1975, do you think he apologised because he did right? While you might be no fan I have no enmity towards him and tend to find him outside the league of the obnoxious. From watching his demeanour I get the impression that he is cut up about it and not merely because was found out. For that reason I agree with Boyne Rover when he refers to orders from on high. My own view is that he has been told to hold the line and is wrongly obeying that edict against his better judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  35. John,

    ‘It is my understanding that Brady would not have been allowed to speak up due to the process of canon law being ongoing.’

    But that can have no bearing on anything. Say a member of the golf club rapes a child it can hardly be justified to delay reporting it to the secular authorities simply because the club is holding its own investigation in accordance with club rules.

    In my view Vatican II was a move away from the oppressive authoritarianism of the Church. One of those whose nose was most put out of joint by it was McQuaid here in Ireland. He has no standing today.

    Abuses happened because the opportunity provided by cover up, trafficking and secrecy allowed it to happen. Those who abused were men of god not men who had lost their faith. Priests, homosexual and heterosexual preyed on the vulnerable. Your argument for using the Vatican brand of Section 31 against Brian D’arcy is a tenuous assumption. You stop priests abusing (or curb it) by making them accountable to the secular authority, show them there is no hiding place, ban them from ever holding ministry in the church, excommunicate them, allow them to practice healthy homosexuality or heterosexuality rather than being forced to go undercover and prey on those they think can be easily intimidated.

    I think most serious Catholics simply disregard the Church on these matters. Fundamentalists listen to the guff from on high but they are diminishing in number.

    I guess a lot of decent priests as well as rapists came through Maynooth. The Vatican is a greater danger to children than Maynooth.

    ‘Those who have abused in the Church are not the Catholic Church, but are renegades against it.’

    True if you have an idealised and abstract view of the Catholic Church. But for most people the Rome led institution is the Catholic Church and the question is why was there a global wide cover up of so many renegades?
    As for Larry he can think as well as you or anybody else here. He just doesn’t think the way you think he should think.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Spent and spend many hours walking in Glenveagh national park, I suspect this is a marketing ploy to get the crowds in,and like Knock when the catholic church is on the back foot Jesus ,Mary or Joseph or Mickeyboy appears, the population of this country cant be that gullible still can they?and why have we never had a visit from Satan,that really would be something I bet..

    ReplyDelete
  37. 'As for Larry he can think as well as you or anybody else here. He just doesn’t think the way you think he should think.'

    Do you see me post on soccer threads? No. Why not? Because I know nothing about it.

    A prerequisite to an intelligent discussion is not the union of minds, (as closed liberal minds are more or less immune to the truth), but some basic knowledge of what you are talking about helps. Larry has not shown that he has that on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  38. John,

    you know nothing about gays but that hardly stops you talking about them!

    Every soccer fan will tell the fan of the other team 'you don't know what you are talking about.'!

    Given that you had gone quiet for a day I thought you were a Man U fan in mourning!

    ReplyDelete
  39. AM,


    ‘You know nothing about gays but that hardly stops you talking about them!’

    There is only so much that I want to know about homosexuality. Engels speaks of the ‘raw moral sewage’ of the homosexual pipeline. What its infiltrators have done in the Catholic Church is pure evil. Of course that doesn’t mean that every individual sucked in to that movement is equally culpable, but it is objectively wrong.

    ‘Given that you had gone quiet for a day I thought you were a Man U fan in mourning!’

    I didn’t even know they were playing.

    ReplyDelete
  40. John,

    ‘I do not have an opinion that 'gay marriage' is wrong, I know it is, with absolute certainty.’

    Only an opinion John which people will not allow you to establish as some sort of infallible truth that you can inflict on society. You may as well pronounce yourself as King of Spain as tell us your opinions are certainties. It makes no difference.

    Being gay is a ‘revolting abomination that even nature cannot tolerate but repays with a variety of diseases such as AIDS.’

    You sound remarkably like Iris Robinson. She too knew for certain. It would seem to be a sickness in itself that can actually believe that AIDS is revenge on gays.

    Those hate filled televangelists believed all that nonsense or spouted it whether they believed it or not.

    ‘It is not my opinion that the glove is for the hand and not the foot.’

    Your arguments here suggest you think the foot is for the mouth.

    Aircraft pilots are an abomination too. If god or nature had intended we fly we would have come equipped with wings.

    ReplyDelete
  41. AM,

    “‘I do not have an opinion that 'gay marriage' is wrong, I know it is, with absolute certainty.’”

    ‘Only an opinion John which people will not allow you to establish as some sort of infallible truth that you can inflict on society. You may as well pronounce yourself as King of Spain as tell us your opinions are certainties. It makes no difference.’

    Are you certain of that, or is it just your opinion. If you are certain then you have just contradicted yourself. If this is only your opinion, then you are at least telling me that you fear you MAY be wrong. I share your fear! In fact I am CERTAIN that you are wrong.

    “Being gay is a ‘revolting abomination that even nature cannot tolerate but repays with a variety of diseases such as AIDS.’”

    ‘You sound remarkably like Iris Robinson. She too knew for certain. It would seem to be a sickness in itself that can actually believe that AIDS is revenge on gays.’

    More an observation, AIDS abounds in those areas that allow homosexual acts to flourish. Even Mrs Robinson can be right on some occasions.

    ‘Those hate filled televangelists believed all that nonsense or spouted it whether they believed it or not.’

    I don’t get those channels, but I’ll take your word for it. In fact I have now formed an opinion that they do say that. But I can’t be certain without more evidence.

    “‘It is not my opinion that the glove is for the hand and not the foot.’”

    ‘Your arguments here suggest you think the foot is for the mouth.’

    Ha ha.

    ‘Aircraft pilots are an abomination too. If god (sic) or nature had intended we fly we would have come equipped with wings.’

    Flying is the fruit of ingenuity and does not oppose the finality of nature but rather helps it. Putting a reproductive organ into the anal passage though, is reducing humanity to below the level of animals. It is probably the lowest thing that a human could do, never mind the unhealthiest. It is taking a fruitful action and making it sterile. It is turning act of love into narcissistic acts of masturbation.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Marty,

    ‘is all religion not just an opinion?’

    And one based on very little evidence. A problem that haunts many religious is that the status of religion as an opinion denies them the ability to impose their certainties, as John terms it, on to the rest of society. This is what infuriates them. When they have to live with the fact that thier canon and Sharia laws have no more status than rules in golf clubs because they are based only on opinions, it enrages them. At the end of the day people have rights aginst the opinions of others whereas they don't as easily against certainties.

    I go for Voltaire on the matter: 'Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.'

    None of us like to be uncertain but it is the lesser of evils.

    A guy once said to me ‘do you think if the pope discovered there was no god he would tell the rest of us?’ Indeed. Why would he? It would lessen his power and authority which is what it is all about. I doubt if all these bishops, cardinals and popes really believe in the things they tell us.

    John

    ‘Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty.’

    Change boys to whites and ladies to black and you have picked one straight out of the South African apartheid dictionary.

    ReplyDelete
  43. AM,

    ‘Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty.’

    Change boys to whites and ladies to black and you have picked one straight out of the South African apartheid dictionary.

    Do you not think ladies should be treated with courtesy and respect? Would you not hold a door open for one, or give them your seat?

    (If the whites in South Africa had treated the blacks with courtesy and respect the whole of history would have been different.)

    It is the disappearance of deference that creates problems. That has led, among other things to a blurring of the sexes, a feminization of the male and a masculinisation of the female. One way or another society will have to right this tendency, because it is very destructive. Many would even blame it for the suicide rate of young males who have been robbed of a reason to live.

    Do you think all sports should be mixed? Or is it just sports in Catholic schools?

    ReplyDelete
  44. john
    you didn't even know man united were playing? And yet the daughter of some tyrone irish bog gaelic team is supposed to be a globally recognisable celebrity and afforded a 'state funeral'. YER FULA S-H..1..T john..like yer church.

    ReplyDelete
  45. John,

    ‘Our reason can prove the existence of God, the existence of a spiritual soul, the freedom of our will and the necessity of religion.’

    To the contrary. Our irrationality can prove the existence of god. Reason leads us to question that existence.

    ‘Then after that Christ has proved that He was the Messiah by fulfilling the prophecies, made over several millennia before His birth. He healed the sick, made the blind see, brought the dead to life and rose from the dead, proving that He was the Son of God.’

    But so many Middle Eastern holy men were at that stunt. JC was hardly anything new. The Osiris-Dionysus narrative comes out of a plague of them all claiming to do the same thing.

    ‘The Catholic religion is entirely and only founded upon absolute certainty.’

    Is there any religion claims it is not absolutely certain? Is not that what they are based on?

    If there is a god it is people like Kung who have invited us to reflect more seriously on it, ask questions about it, delve deeper into it. I don’t much follow Flannery or d’Arcey but censoring them seems the censors, as always, have something to fear and don’t want people making up their own minds.

    ReplyDelete
  46. John if you think reason can prove the existence of god,then you wanna see what a bottle of plum falling down water can produce,but dont leave your seat while the room is in motion a cara..

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dirty Larry,

    "you didn't even know man united were playing?"

    Why should I know that an English soccer team is playing?

    And yet the daughter of some tyrone irish bog gaelic team is supposed to be a globally recognisable celebrity and afforded a 'state funeral'.

    No State funeral, just a large funeral made up of all she had been in contact with., in Tyrone and throughout the country.

    Will you ever respect the dead?

    "YER FULA S-H..1..T john..like yer church."

    Every time I read one of your posts, it leaves me feeling somehow dirty and lessened as a human being.

    It is people like you who will ensure that Ireland will never be free, with your English games and your hatred of all things Irish.

    You epitomize the low state that much of the Irish Nation has been reduced to.

    ReplyDelete
  48. john
    progress is what's required. Lemas knew it but the cute hoors are still scoffing at the trough which is the Dail. You think 6 county Protestants are interested in that? There's a lot of talk of Tone and Republicanism on here; my bet is many Catholics and dissenters are united in their disgust at the free state and their determination to stay out of it. SF may be onto something after all.

    Enjoy the Tyrone crossroads with yer rosary beads and if you see any priests giving wee boys evil looks dont be afraid to 'notice' it...or even report it.

    Enjoy also those games that no-one else can be bothered to play, only inward thinking, backward self delusional bog dwellers of the GAY...oops GAA.

    YOUR vision of Ireland is the one that countless millions fled.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "YOUR vision of Ireland is the one that countless millions fled."

    Whatever else you might say about Larry Hughes, he has hit the nail on the head here, John.

    If you still think that clerical sexual abuse is a modern phenomenon and that it hardly occurred in the past, I suggest you have a look at the book Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes, by Ricard Sipe, Tom Doyle and Patrick Wall. The authors argue that the Church's own legal documents and the pronouncements of authoritative sources like St. Peter Damian reveal "a consistent pattern of non-celibate behaviour by significant numbers of priests" throughout Church history. Of the medieval period, they note that "monks became known for the frequency of homosexual activity, especially with young boys." Furthermore, the authors make the following point::

    "The recurrence of church regulations against celibacy violations indicates that these violations were both widespread and publicly known. Michael Goodich claims that the number of thirteenth-century references to homosexuality suggests that it was commonly regarded as a clerical vice. The frequent mentions of the suppression of sodomy among the clergy in ecclesiatical legislation support this theory."

    Sipe et al. contend that the Church seemed to deal openly with clerical sexual abuse before the 16th century, but that the Reformation "shook the Catholic Church to its politial and religious roots" and "[f]rom that point on, one sees a pattern of secrecy emerging with the Church's response to clerical sexual issues." This is evidenced by the fact that there was no requirement or recommendation to report accused clerics to civil authorities in any Vatican documents from the 18th century to the late 20th century. The authors compare this later secretive attitude with the policy of Pope Pius V in 1566, who publicly condemned clerical sodomy (he most likely was referring to pederasty). He denounced all who committed this crime and decreed that they be handed over to civil authorities for punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Larry the Limey,

    ‘There's a lot of talk of Tone and Republicanism on here; my bet is many Catholics and dissenters are united in their disgust at the free state and their determination to stay out of it.’

    Blimey Larry, I wouldn’t cross a road to be part of the Free State. The fact that you even think anyone wants to join the Free State shows how delusional you are. Both British States in Ireland need to be dismantled.

    ‘Enjoy the Tyrone crossroads with yer rosary beads and if you see any priests giving wee boys evil looks dont be afraid to 'notice' it...or even report it.’

    I’d keep away form Tyrone if I were you. I could not guarantee you safe passage.

    ‘Enjoy also those games that no-one else can be bothered to play, only inward thinking, backward self delusional bog dwellers of the GAY...oops GAA. ‘

    See you CAN mock the GAA without denigrating the dead. Well done! However your ignorance is astounding. The GAA has the backing of 100% of Irish patriots in Tyrone. Please don’t project your Limey ways on this proud county. Soccer is really only followed by Huns here.

    ‘YOUR vision of Ireland is the one that countless millions fled.’

    Mine is the vision of Pearse and the men of 1916. If you can’t cope with that you could always take the boat to Mother England. First stop, Manchester. It’ sLimey’s stop.

    ReplyDelete
  51. john
    uncrowned king ot Tyrone; self proclaimed. Nobody is interested in your outdated, useless vision of destitution under a Vatican tyrany. No-one likely wants to be anywhere near Tyrone if it's infested with religious zealots and sexual deviant facilitators and excusors like yourself John.

    I'm in Tyrone fairly regular as a matter of fact, and never worry about freaks like yerself John.. thankfully you're in an accute minority nomatter how many crappy organisations you profess to be a part of.

    'blimey'? wee slip of the petticoat there jonathan.?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Alfie, (Part 1)

    ‘"YOUR vision of Ireland is the one that countless millions fled."’

    ‘Whatever else you might say about Larry Hughes, he has hit the nail on the head here, John.’

    I disagree. A distinction should be made between my views as a Catholic, and my willingness to tolerate other views in the interests of National Unity. The majority of the men of 1916 shared by views, but united for the Common Good of Ireland.

    ‘If you still think that clerical sexual abuse is a modern phenomenon and that it hardly occurred in the past, I suggest you have a look at the book Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes, by Ricard Sipe, Tom Doyle and Patrick Wall. ‘

    Richard Sipe and Patrick Wall are runaway monks, who broke their vows and eloped with women and Sipe has definitely imbibed a little too much psychocodswollopology. His accuracy can be seen in his saying that ‘"several hundred popes have been murdered." Given that we haven’t had several hundred Popes, it weakens his case somewhat. Father Doyle, (a post Vatican II ‘priest’) was sacked for doctrinal and disciplinary measures in the 80s and has since been grinding his axe.

    Just how objective can these people be, who have a vested interest in undermining clerical celibacy, if only by exaggerating the past abuse. I have noticed a tendency to exaggerate abuse even in Randy Engel’s Rite of Sodomy. There are also those who would accuse Cardinal Newman of being ‘gay’, which in my view is imposing 21st century views on those who would have been horrified at the thought of sodomy, but valued friendship dearly in the spirit of Cicero.

    That said, I don’t think it is merely a modern phenomenon. I just think there was a trickle throughout history, which has burst the dam in the post Vatican II era, and for a while risked becoming accepted, at least insofar as it was carried out by those past the age of majority.

    Also most priests in bygone times were in religious orders, cut off from the secular world. There was probably a degree of homosexuality between them, which had to be periodically stamped out. More recently most priests are secular clergy, often living alone, and with more contact with the public. That meant their homosexual behaviour could not operate so well between themselves.

    The factors which you are not accounting for are that Satan and his rebel angels have been plotting for thousands of years to destroy the Catholic Church and there are undoubtedly those who have joined with the purpose of furthering the destruction of the Catholic Church. We know that tens of thousands of Communists infiltrated the Church; it is quite likely that there was a concerted campaign to fill its ranks with homos, some, no doubt, with the express intent of bringing down the priesthood.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Alfie, (Part 2)

    ‘The authors argue that the Church's own legal documents and the pronouncements of authoritative sources like St. Peter Damian reveal "a consistent pattern of non-celibate behaviour by significant numbers of priests" throughout Church history. ‘

    I have several times quoted St Peter Damian. His ‘Book of Gomorrah’ is an excellent treatise against clerical homosexual practices. I would go so far as to say that it is THE antidote that needs to be read, studied and acted upon today. He is a Doctor of the Church and his words should not lightly be dismissed, by those today who advocate ‘gay sex’ among clergy, while lamenting it abuse. Once someone has crossed the Rubicon, by engaging in gay sex, then they are in freefall insofar as Catholic morality goes. You may say studies show no link, but if a cleric is prepared to break vows, and engage in homosexual practices, it is but another step to find younger victims.

    ‘Of the medieval period, they note that "monks became known for the frequency of homosexual activity, especially with young boys." ‘

    You see the constant theme, homosexual activity and the targeting of young boys.

    The last points you made are very interesting. It seems that much discipline has been relaxed over the centuries. I would back the policy of St Pope Pius V, in fact I quoted it approvingly on here and was lambasted for so doing. There was only one penalty for homosexual relations at that time, ‘death’. That being the case, I would not be too inclined to thing that they were all at it, it was dealt with ruthlessly.

    I do not believe that it is totally the responsibility of Catholics though, because the same period from the 18th century onwards had a lessening of penalties for homosexual acts, and thus might go some way to explaining why it would not be deemed necessary to report them.

    What really frightens me is that clerical abusers are but the tip of an iceberg. Today’s atheists may be using this as a stick to beat the Church, but it is frightening that for every clerical case, there are thousands of them in the secular world. Our fallen human nature is pitiful when these things can go on, largely ignored by those whose hatred of the Catholic Church blinds them to the much greater abuse going on in their own midst.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Leary Larry,

    ‘No-one likely wants to be anywhere near Tyrone if it's infested with religious zealots and sexual deviant facilitators and excusors like yourself John.’

    I am taking that one for legal advice, Larry, You can’t say that with impunity, you know. You have consistently made such accusations against me, and I am seeking advice on them.

    ‘nomatter how many crappy organisations you profess to be a part of.’

    I’m not sure I’ve claimed to be any.

    ‘'blimey'? wee slip of the petticoat there jonathan.?’

    Are you really that stupid that you couldn’t see a theme?

    ‘Larry the Limey,’
    ‘Blimey Larry,’
    ‘sLimey’s.’

    No it wasn’t a slip, Larry. It was a comment on you being a West Brit. Do I really have to spell it out to you, thicko!

    Please be advised if you accuse me of anything to do with paedophilia again, I will not let it rest and will pursue the matter.

    Now SHUT UP! I have no interest in your rancid comments.

    ReplyDelete
  55. John,

    but what court could you take it to given that you regard them all as illegitimate and illegal? !!

    This type of stuff gets thrown about on the site regularly and there are two of you in it. If we think it is libellous as distinct from name calling we will not let it up. In this case I think Larry was name calling. People who have suggested in the past that you are a pervert because of your views have been rebuked. I read Larry in the context of saying your arguments amount to giving cover to the abusers.

    ReplyDelete
  56. AM,,

    ‘but what court could you take it to given that you regard them all as illegitimate and illegal? !!’

    One that issues swift and effective judgement, Anthony. With no leave of appeal!

    ‘This type of stuff gets thrown about on the site regularly and there are two of you in it. If we think it is libellous as distinct from name calling we will not let it up. In this case I think Larry was name calling. People who have suggested in the past that you are a pervert because of your views have been rebuked. I read Larry in the context of saying your arguments amount to giving cover to the abusers.’

    Yes, on reflection, the Christian thing would be to offer a decade of the Rosary for him. It would probably annoy him more too,

    ReplyDelete
  57. John & Larry,

    After years of insulting my opponents in debates and being insulted myself in turn, I came to the conclusion that whatever hope you have of changing people's minds evaporates once you start calling them nasty names.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 'After years of insulting my opponents in debates and being insulted myself in turn, I came to the conclusion that whatever hope you have of changing people's minds evaporates once you start calling them nasty names.'

    I am willing to 'bury the hatchet'!

    ReplyDelete
  59. john
    would you not take the piests to court as fast and win some respect for you religious 'crusades'...?

    Mackers EXACTLY i feel his wriggling is nothing more than a defence of the indefencible.

    Alfie
    it's only banter.

    ReplyDelete
  60. john
    decade of the rosary wouldn't come close to saving me.

    ReplyDelete
  61. FFS People, get a grip of yourselves, to those who goto Mass every Sunday, or, Novena Every night, Good for you, You have my respect, To those who do not goto Mass every sunday, or, do not go to any Novena, good for you as well, you also have my respect, Myself Personally, I have no time for any of it anymore, It cost more to die than it does to be born. Now, me, being a stupid old pauper, arranged for my late wifes funeral, R.I.P. Helena, the arrangement was, The undertaker Collect her remains from the hospital and take them to the chaple were she laid over night, the next day, her remains were brought from the chaple to the family home, were She laid for three days, "THE WAKE", On the day of the Burial, her remains were removed from the family home to the chaple for high mass, then to the cemetery for burial, so you may ask yourself, why am i telling you all this, WELL, I am telling you because, i did not have a clue that the priest had a tarif, that is gospel, or, what ever you want to call it, I got a shock when I got a Bill for £275-00 from the chaple, now here is my reasoning, It is written, "Believers shall disbelieve", Disbelievers shall believe", to me its like the old thing , as kids we used to sing, Ring a Ring a rosy a bottle full of possie, Its one HELL of a BUSINESS that church GAME. Oh, just to get to the point, I Hope Brady does not resign, WHY?, because he will eventually open the can of worms, he is not the type to take the blame, as for sainthood, what gives any man the right to make anyone a saint, Its for there own convenience, let the Paupers feed us, clothe us, built our castles (churches), pay our wages, etc,etc, a very great friend of mine the late Charlie Mc Cann, his whole family were nightly mass goers, also , I used to goto 10am Mass with him and the rest of my mtes to Holy Cross Ardoyne, then from there to the League for a game of poker, from what we made from the collection plate, so i hope you get my point, two can play at there own game, Alas Charlie died in a premature explossion whilst on active service with his other mates. R.I.P.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Justmackers Toombridge 73-74 also family involved in a horrific car crash on the way to an anniversary,

    ReplyDelete
  63. John,

    The Christian thing to do depends on what century you are in. Burning him was once the Christian thing to do!

    Anyway, I am glad you are more relaxed about it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anthony thank f##k you didnt say "turn the other cheek"

    ReplyDelete
  65. I watched some rte coverage of this It is very sad I was 14 too like Brendan Boland but unlike him i told no-one. Brendan was twice betrayed physical rape coupled with double whammy psychological rape over again and by standover tactics. Sean Brady is a twisted gutless coward and that is a compliment really.

    Anthony has got it so right - re 'such was the need to protect powere and reputation that truth was held within the grip of those least likely to do anything with it other than bury it'

    You got to wonder how many other kids were done over who now as adults cannot bear to disclose or face it.

    It is disgusting that victims have to fight and fight for justice It just never ends. Just never ends. I have it in my will that i do not want to have a catholic funeral service. The only exception being is if my coffin has painted on it 'Fuck Catholicism for it fucked me' But i am certain that scenario will not occur ahahaha

    All power & respect to Brendan Boland...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Marty.

    It was the 5th Feb 1972 on Lough Neagh, I keep wondering was it tampered with , like all the rest of the premature explosions, touts in our midst, letting the RUC special branch alter the timers, there moto was and still is, just blow them up, saves on a diplock court case., and, yes, it was a very sad incident with the Mc Cann family.

    ReplyDelete
  67. itsjustmackers - Sorry for your loss of your partner & also the friend...
    Now re the '£275-00' funeral bill. You should NOT have paid it. Here are some scriptures to stuff in an envelope and request a refund immediately. Also state in a letter if they do not want to refund it please provide scriptures to explain why they should keep the money and take it from a lower socio economic person who was not informed of the fee. Ask them what would Jesus do?

    and you can ask did Jesus wear red Gucci shoes and gold jewellery & fine clothes... i would...
    Here u are These are gold in a non monetary sense Work em!

    "They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40

    "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

    'Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages.' He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it." John 12:5

    "Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, 'Here's a good seat for you,' but say to the poor man, 'You stand there' or 'Sit on the floor by my feet,' have you not discriminated among yourselves and becomes judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?" James 2:2-6

    Sorry for the length of post Anthony. itsjustmackers hope this assists moneywise. PS you could also make an app. with a social worker or activist and get them to do the cover letter. I would do it for u but am cannot as in Oz

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thanks for that itsjustmacker, seems, was a lifetime ago,I would not be in the least surprised,given what we know now about how much prm was infiltrated,we have never fought the brits on a level playing field so to speak,if we had I think the outcome would have been much different, but given the reality of our situation we should ensure that there is no more Chas Mc Cann,s ,or Bobby Sands,or hostages like Marian, we can and should confront them on our own terms ,

    ReplyDelete
  69. Itsjustmackers you mentioned your late wifes Helena funeral a cara,my respects,it is indeed a rip off and both the undertakers and church make a tidy living out of the dead so to speak, I believe they actually charge up to £8 for the hire of the black bow on the door, years ago we in the prm were able to help the people by applying to the dhss for financial help on their behalf we used to get gratuities for the church even an allowance for flowers on the alter,also expenses for opening the grave, now as say the people are forced into even more debt with the loss of a loved one, I for one have left strict instructions that I want burnt (nah nah John! ) and my family are not to go into any debt. a wheele bin makes as good a casket as any . Also a cara ring a ring o rosie is about the Black Death or plauge,,,

    ReplyDelete
  70. Marty,

    used to plump for cremation but now it looks like medical science for what's left of me

    ReplyDelete
  71. You,ll be pickled and left in B,C, a cara with a UTD shirt wrapped around yer jar.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Which I should have said a cara is not the worst, e.g, I am getting left on the fireplace in a jar and gonna still be nagged even after I,m long gone ffs,with a pair of John,s beads and the thoughts and quotations of Mickeyboy in and around the jar..!!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Att John McGirr & anyone interested. For you to ponder John & for the many 2 ENJOY! Nyabinghi NB POPE SMASHER DRUMS aks Harps 2012 performing at bob marley museum... and listen to the chant& WHAT THEY R SAYING.. THERE IS A WAR babylon aka the Vatican the Whore ahaha I do love these drums.
    If this link does not work just click on my name for my blog as i have it up there By the way the best music imo for truth is Yabby You a Jesus Dread from the 70's. Just google him up. I listen to his music ALL the time... you should too it will clear your mind and spirit of the VILE Vatican

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gS_PfOSEKA&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  74. Marty,

    If I was handed over to BC they would return me to the North forthwith and into the hands of the cops!

    John

    ‘Engels speaks of the 'raw moral sewage' of the homosexual pipeline.

    And others think of the raw moral sewage that it the Church.

    Just pause and ask what is the vilest - 2 gay men having consensual sex or a church official coercing a raped child to secrecy?

    Saint?MaryHedgehog,

    You are a woman of great spirit and have battled against the evil of the Church with great determination.

    ‘I have it in my will that I do not want to have a catholic funeral service. The only exception being is if my coffin has painted on it 'Fuck Catholicism for it fucked me'

    Brilliant. That is the spirit of resistance that is often talked about but which is throwing off the yoke of Church repression.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Saint?MaryHedgehog.

    Thank you for your comments and offer of help, alas, this all happened on the 8th January 1999, and the priest who conducted the service has now left with his unmarried cleaner and taken up a post in a catholic secondry school as an R.E. teacher, prior to his leaving his cloth, he was preaching about unmarried mothers not be worthy of the holy sacrement. lol, such hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  76. john
    why are you only interested in as the 'bull' barman says in savage eye 'FUKN QUEERS' are ye related to one...or are ye one? haha!!

    ReplyDelete
  77. Larry,

    'why are you only interested in as the 'bull' barman says in savage eye 'FUKN QUEERS' are ye related to one...or are ye one? haha!!'

    Well Larry, I don't bring the subject up. Clerical abuse keeps being raised on here, as a weapon to attack the Church.

    You cannot discuss clerical abuse without discussing homosexuality.

    By the same logic, you must be a secret Catholic; maybe you are the Pope!

    ReplyDelete
  78. john
    only when i'm at Ibrox for some strange reason.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Rendezvous in Rome

    SMH,

    Make your posts as long as you want. They are never dull, that’s for sure!
    John,

    You asked Larry: ‘Will you ever respect the dead?’

    But there is no binding reason why we should. You didn’t show respect to Ronan Kerr when you slagged him off. If respect is your barometer I think your comment on Ronan Kerr was much worse than what you accuse Larry of.

    And I am not complaining about your lack of respect. I don’t demand that you respect the dead. I just think your argument would be stronger were it not for the inconsistency.

    'I do not have an opinion that 'gay marriage' is wrong, I know it is, with absolute certainty.'

    I am reminded of Mencken here: ‘We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.’

    ‘Are you certain of that, or is it just your opinion?’

    Sophistry John. It is in the mould of that old one the atheist asks of the street preacher: ‘can god make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it?’

    One thing humans can be certain of is just how uncertain they actually are.

    ‘Even Mrs Robinson can be right on some occasions.’

    Given her record of bigotry it is not something you would risk going to the bookies on.

    Televangelists are the comedy channels in this house.

    Much sexual behaviour is the fruit of human experimentation. The human imagination takes people off in directions others can’t comprehend or don’t like. And if human experimentation was not needed god would have given us wings.

    ‘the finality of nature but rather helps it’ whatever it is or may be will be determined by human evolution rather than a designer.

    ‘Putting a reproductive organ into the anal passage though, is reducing humanity to below the level of animals.’

    It is a sex organ as well as a reproductive organ. It is a practice straight people engage in too. It is not gay specific.
    Humans have devised ways (ingenuity again) of getting great pleasure from it which no doubt annoys the puritans but few will care about that. If you want to stir your tea with it John, fine by me. Just keep it away from my cup!

    ‘the lowest thing that a human could do’

    I thought last time round you told us that sticking nails in the communion wafer was the worst thing.Even lower than covering up the sex crimes of the Cardinal of Austria?

    ‘It is taking a fruitful action and making it sterile.’

    You do see the pun in the fruitful action!

    But so is the rhythm method.

    ReplyDelete
  80. John,

    ‘Do you not think ladies should be treated with courtesy and respect?’

    Yes. Both them and men regardless of their sexual orientation.

    ‘Would you not hold a door open for one, or give them your seat?’

    I hold the door open for everyone. I would give my seat to the aged or infirm, a woman or man with a child. But I would not give it to a woman just because she is a woman. Nor would I give it to a gay just because they are a gay.

    ‘It is the disappearance of deference that creates problems.’

    No it isn’t. It is the institutionalisation of deference where women are forced to defer to the judgements of men. If you really respect them as distinct from wanting to keep them ‘in their place’ then argue for them to have full equality, to be priests in your Church, to make the decision whether they want to be on the football team or not. Outside of that what you talk about is domination not deference.

    ‘Many would even blame it for the suicide rate of young males who have been robbed of a
    reason to live.’

    Who for example? There might be some men who have killed themselves because they lost the power to boss a woman about but I don’t think it is a significant factor in the phenomenon of suicide that we know of.

    ‘Do you think all sports should be mixed? Or is it just sports in Catholic schools?’

    That seems a silly question. Why just Catholic schools? How many Catholic schools other than the one we linked to have sought to discriminate against women and girls in sports? I would mix sports where it is feasible and where women want to participate. But women should make the decision and not be told by men that they will be discriminated against.

    I am sure there are men out there who hate the notion of women getting jobs or playing chess.

    ReplyDelete
  81. AM,

    ‘You didn’t show respect to Ronan Kerr when you slagged him off.’

    I have no memory of slagging him off.

    ‘If respect is your barometer I think your comment on Ronan Kerr was much worse than what you accuse Larry of.’

    Was it? As I recall I said ‘Kerr booom!!, or something similar.

    ‘And I am not complaining about your lack of respect. I don’t demand that you respect the dead. I just think your argument would be stronger were it not for the inconsistency.’

    As Ronan Kerr fronted an enemy organization, I would not put that on a level with a girl whose only crime was that Larry doesn’t like the GAA . Also I did not post it on a memorial article about him. In fact, if I had sought out a page dedicated to the memory of Ronan Kerr and posted it there, I would agree, but I would not do that, out of respect for the dead, even enemy dead.

    “ ‘Are you certain of that, or is it just your opinion?’”

    ‘Sophistry John. It is in the mould of that old one the atheist asks of the street preacher: ‘can god make a stone so heavy he can’t lift it?’ ‘

    Why is it sophistry to point out the inconsistency that demolishes your entire arguments on everything? We can be certain about many things in life, and I see no benefit in claiming that we cannot.

    ‘One thing humans can be certain of is just how uncertain they actually are.’

    I would add the word ‘sometimes’ to that. Of course there are times when we cannot be certain, but there are also occasions that we can be absolutely certain.

    “‘Even Mrs Robinson can be right on some occasions.’”

    ‘Given her record of bigotry it is not something you would risk going to the bookies on.’

    Is she really any more bigoted than the average ‘Ulster Protestant’?

    “‘It is the disappearance of deference that creates problems.’”

    ‘No it isn’t. It is the institutionalisation of deference where women are forced to defer to the judgements of men.’

    You are reversing what was quoted. They said women should be treated with deference, not that they should be deferring to men. It is like confusing ‘eating a chicken’ with ‘being eaten by a chicken’.

    ‘If you really respect them as distinct from wanting to keep them ‘in their place’ then argue for them to have full equality, to be priests in your Church,’

    I let the golf club make up its own rules.

    ‘to make the decision whether they want to be on the football team or not.’

    How many women play for your English soccer team? If none, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  82. ‘Richard Sipe and Patrick Wall are runaway monks, who broke their vows and eloped with women’

    What a terrible thing to do. Let us cast them out and no longer believe them for that.

    ‘Satan and his rebel angels have been plotting for thousands of years to destroy the Catholic
    Church.’

    You know we are not going to take this seriously?

    ‘Once someone has crossed the Rubicon, by engaging in gay sex, then they are in freefall insofar as Catholic morality goes.’
    At least we can agree on that. Catholic morality – of no consequence to anyone other than those who want to be unthinking obedient Catholics. A small pool these days. The good Catholics are asking questions, rebelling and refusing to listen to nonsense from the Capo di tutti capi

    ‘if a cleric is prepared to break vows, and engage in homosexual practices, it is but another step to find younger victims.’

    That is like saying if someone is prepared to ignore the church’s teaching on political violence then he is one step away from strangling women. Both statements in my view would be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  83. John,

    "I am willing to 'bury the hatchet'!"

    In the back of Larry's head, I bet!

    Seriously though, Ricard Sipe may have made a foolish comment to the media a few years ago or perhaps he was misquoted. Either way, I think his work must be examined on it own merits rather than on the basis of an idle remark to ABC News. The book that I mentioned has been widely praised; I think even conservative Catholic scholars like Leon Podles have endorsed its findings. Podles also notes on his blog that Tom Doyle was ostracised from the Church for speaking out about clerical sexual abuse in the 1980s. Perhaps that is why he was found guilty of the "doctrinal and disciplinary" breaches to which you refer. I mean, how many priests were sacked in the 80s for sexually abusing minors?

    In 1050, St. Peter Damian saw it necessary to devote an entire book to condemning the vices of the clergy - including sexual abuse of minors and the actions taken by church superiors to hide the crimes. This and the other documentary evidence cited in Sex, Priests & Secret Codes suggests that clerical sexual abuse was far more than just a "trickle" before the mid-twentieth century.

    "The factors which you are not accounting for are that Satan and his rebel angels have been plotting for thousands of years to destroy the Catholic Church and there are undoubtedly those who have joined with the purpose of furthering the destruction of the Catholic Church."

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Ah for fuck's sake, John!!!

    ReplyDelete
  84. recon the devils angels are the RC church.

    ReplyDelete
  85. John,

    "How many women play for your English soccer team? If none, why not?"

    There is gender separation in most sports because, in general, women cannot physically compete with men. But we don't prevent women from playing sports.

    So what is the Catholic Church's excuse? That all the apostles were male? But Jesus did not seek to persuade any Romans to become apostles, so should Italians be barred from becoming priests as well?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Alfie,

    'There is gender separation in most sports because, in general, women cannot physically compete with men. But we don't prevent women from playing sports.'

    Am I missing something, or is this not precisely the position of the school in question?

    It did not say that the weaker sex should not engage in sport, but rather that they should not be competing against men.

    ReplyDelete
  87. 'It did not say that the weaker sex should not engage in sport, but rather that they should not be competing against men'.

    Personally i think they should drive top of the range motors and earn good money, pay a big mortgage every month and let me sit in the house scratchin me arse... now that would be equality.

    ANY TAKERS....'ladies'?

    ReplyDelete
  88. John,

    My mother and my sisters are definitely not weaker than I am. In fact, life experience has shown that they are stronger.

    I have come to this discussion late in the day and I had not read Anthony's reference to the ultra-orthodox Catholic school's baseball team that would not play against another school's team simply because of the presence of a girl on the latter team. In any event, if the girl in question was good enough to be on the team and compete with boys, then what is the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  89. As I recall I said 'Kerr booom!!, or something similar.

    Which to my mind was slagging him off.

    ‘As Ronan Kerr fronted an enemy organization I would not put that on a level with a girl whose only crime was that Larry doesn't like the GAA.‘

    Some dead are more equal than others then. It is only some dead you require Larry to respect and not them all.

    During the blanket the GAA was a hated organisation.

    ‘Why is it sophistry to point out the inconsistency that demolishes your entire arguments on everything?’

    Why are you still arguing with me then?

    It is as destructive of my argument as the street atheist is destructive of Frank Sheed’s by asking him the same sort of question. Only works in the school yard not in serious discussion.

    'One thing humans can be certain of is just how uncertain they actually are.'

    ‘there are also occasions that we can be absolutely certain.’

    While that absolute certainty is challenged by another absolute certainty that it is wrong. I like Bertrand Russell when he said ‘Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.’

    Is she really any more bigoted than the average 'Ulster Protestant'?

    Yes, much more so. She is as bigoted as some non average ‘Irish Catholics.’

    I know quite a few Protestants I regard as average and they don’t froth at the mouth about gays while riding teenagers young enough to be their grandchildren. It is this old cherry picking Christianity at play again. Don’t do as I do, do as I say.

    The football team in question is forcing the girl on the other team to defer to their judgement. It is domination not respect.

    ‘I let the golf club make up its own rules.’

    With the proviso that nobody outside the club is subject to them. The discriminated against girl was not a member of that club but another who made its own rules and allowed her to play. The golf club can’t actually go about picking the players for the other golf club against whom it is competing.

    'How many women play for your English soccer team? If none, why not?'

    Asked in perfect English too! None play. They don’t do so because historically men have made it their game. It will change. But no one is standing saying Bill Shankly told them in a vision that women could never play.

    I would love to see a woman play for Liverpool. In fact I would love to see 11 women play for Liverpool. They would do better than the current 11 men. Imagine some crusty old Catholics telling Marian Price she could not play soccer because they don’t allow it out of deference to her.

    ReplyDelete
  90. AM,
    ‘Some dead are more equal than others then. ‘

    Yes.

    “ ‘Why is it sophistry to point out the inconsistency that demolishes your entire arguments on everything?’”

    ‘Why are you still arguing with me then?’

    Are you absolutely certain that I am?

    ‘It is as destructive of my argument as the street atheist is destructive of Frank Sheed’s by asking him the same sort of question. Only works in the school yard not in serious discussion.’

    Rather than for the school yard the question of certainty is a foundational question on which the whole edifice of human knowledge rests.

    As the epistemological thesis states it;
    Universal scepticism in theoretically absurd and practically impossible.

    ‘I like Bertrand Russell when he said ‘Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.’’

    I am glad that he was not absolutely certain of his atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Alfie,

    As always a thoughtful post.

    It is no surprise that Tom Doyle was ostracised. We need only look at men like Hans Kung who were faced with many obstacles because they found some of the Church’s teaching ridiculous. If something is ridiculous then priests and anyone else should be free to say so.

    ‘how many priests were sacked in the 80s for sexually abusing minors?

    More were hidden than sacked. We know that.

    ‘I've said it before and I'll say it again: Ah for fuck's sake, John!!!’

    I have had that feeling. The devil and his angels. If my six year old said that ...!

    ReplyDelete
  92. AM
    ‘The devil and his angels. If my six year old said that ...!’

    Here are some statistics from Wikipedia that suggest your six your old is in a small minority, Anthony.
    ‘… according to four different polls conducted in 2009, a greater percentage of Americans believe in angels (55%) than those who believe in global warming (36%).’
    ‘According to the Gallup Youth Survey, in a Teen Belief in the Supernatural poll in 1994, 76% of 508 teenagers (aged 13–17) believe in angels, a greater percentage than those who believe in astrology, ESP, ghosts, witchcraft, clairvoyance, Bigfoot, and vampires. In 1978, 64% of American young people believed in angels; in 1984, 69% of teenagers believed in angels; and by 1994, that number grew to 76%, while belief in other supernatural concepts, such as the Loch Ness monster and ESP, have declined. In 1992, 80% of 502 surveyed teenage girls believe in angels, and 81% of Catholic teens and 82% of regular church attendees harbored beliefs in angels.According to another set of Gallup polls, designated towards all Americans, in 1994, 72% of Americans said they believed in angels, while in 2004, 78% of the surveyed Americans indicated belief in angels, with the percentage of Americans that did not believe in angels dropping from 15% to 10%, and the percentage of Americans that were "not sure" dropping from 13% to 11%.’
    ‘In Canada, a 2008 survey of over 1000 Canadians found 67 percent believe in angels’

    ReplyDelete
  93. John,

    you brought a smile to my face letting me know my six year old has more cop on than so many! Believing in fairies/angels! Did they make use of anonymity for these surveys?

    It is funny if it was not for the fact that is demonstrates how gullible people can be. I used to say that a people easily led is a people that will easily commit atrocity. I guess it is one of the reasons I value dissent and open democracies and dislike secret societies.

    Interestingly, while I don't have time to dig up the stats, I think it was over half the US population believed the world was created 6000 years ago. You would begin to worry about such levels of ignorance. I think it was estimated that the evidence for that was equivalent to the evidence for America being six inches from Ireland. I guess with all the evidence for global warming and no evidence for angels, it is no surprise that people swallow such rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  94. AM,
    ‘Interestingly, while I don't have time to dig up the stats, I think it was over half the US population believed the world was created 6000 years ago.’

    I personally plump for the Incarnation taking place five-thousand one-hundred and ninety-nine years from the creation of the world. That, however is only the traditional date. On this point I can’t be certain, so I would regard it as a probable opinion.

    It is not a question that can be answered by experimental science, as even if you got into a time machine and landed back in the Garden of Eden, how would you know? If the world had just been created an instant before the empiricist would see the rivers and mountains, and say that they took hundreds of thousands of years to form.

    I totally reject the notion that America is six inches from Ireland, together with the even more fanciful notion of global warming.

    It is interesting that belief in angels in near universal. Where something is so universally attested, I would not so easily dismiss it.

    ReplyDelete
  95. AM,
    ‘Humans have devised ways (ingenuity again) of getting great pleasure from it which no doubt annoys the puritans but few will care about that.’

    You seem to be assuming that everyone must either be a hedonist or a puritan. Hedonism and Puritanism are both distortions.

    Alfie,
    "I am willing to 'bury the hatchet'!"

    ‘In the back of Larry's head, I bet!’

    Perish the thought!

    ‘In 1050, St. Peter Damian saw it necessary to devote an entire book to condemning the vices of the clergy - including sexual abuse of minors and the actions taken by church superiors to hide the crimes.’

    And it is a masterful work that correctly identifies the problem and advocates the severest penalties. His analysis is exactly right and his remedy also. Unfortunately, nobody wants to hear his message today. They would sooner allow abuse to flourish rather than take on the homosexual perpetrators.

    ReplyDelete
  96. John,

    'You seem to be assuming that everyone must either be a hedonist or a puritan. Hedonism and Puritanism are both distortions.'

    You confuse matters. Puritans are hedonists who derive perverse pleasure from denying pleasure to others who derive it from much less perverse means.

    ReplyDelete
  97. John

    AM: 'Some dead are more equal than others then. '

    JM: 'Yes.'

    Which means you were not being critical of Larry for not respecting the dead, just the dead you want respected. Sort of makes it different don't you think?


    'Rather than for the school yard the question of certainty is a foundational question on which the whole edifice of human knowledge rests.'

    But you can't be certain god isn't playing a trick on you.

    Religion has no certainties just a totalitarian need to proclaim certainties which it does not want questioned.


    ''Universal scepticism in theoretically absurd and practically impossible.'

    Nothing there to be disagreed with. The problem is still to define what are certainties. Science does the best job but must always hold open the possibility of being wrong by allowing the challenge of new evidence. Once science represses new evidence it just becomes one more belief system rooted in mere bias. This is what makes the 'teach the controversy' stance of ID in the US so skewed. ID is religion not science and has no basis for being taught in a science class. Were ID science and the Darwin school was repressing it on those grounds I would back its claim to be taught regardless of what the Darwinists says.

    'I am glad that he was not absolutely certain of his atheism.'

    I am too. It is what defines him from the totalitarian and opens up the possibility to change in light of new evidence. As he said on the existence of god 'not enough evidence Lord.'! When I see the evidence I too shall change my mind. Up to now there has been none. Not even as much as a one legged person going to Lourdes and coming back with two.

    ReplyDelete
  98. John,

    it is very much a question science can answer. The notion of needing a time machine is hardly a serious proposition. There are so many ways of determining the age of something and understanding geological history without Dr Who. There is no serious Catholic theologian I know of who in the light of evidence available today entertains the notion of a 'young earth.' Only the crazed creationists do that. However, rejecting the young earth view does not rule out the existence of god. Many theologians see in evolution even more evidence of the complexity and creativity of god. Biblical literalists just download ridicule.

    'It is interesting that belief in angels in near universal. Where something is so universally attested, I would not so easily dismiss it.'

    And they all thought the earth was flat at one time.

    I will believe in angels, fairies and whatever else if I find evidence for it. The only evidence I can see remotely for Satan and his angels is the Vatican. But I know it is wrong to mistake evil men for supernatural phenomena.

    ReplyDelete
  99. AM,
    'I don’t believe SMH is into Catholic bashing in the way that you would be into gay bashing.'

    You think? I quote SMH?;
    "I feel at times like i could smash a thousand statues of the Virgin Mary with one hand lolol"

    It is an infallible mark of the diabolically possessed anti-Catholic that they will always attack the Blessed Virgin, the Blessed Sacrament and the Papacy.

    Three things that SMH? Cannot contain herself over.

    If her latest rants are not Catholic bashing then there is no such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Rendezvous in Rome
    John,

    ‘It is an infallible mark of the diabolically possessed anti-Catholic that they will always attack the Blessed Virgin, the Blessed Sacrament and the Papacy.’

    That sounds diabolically possessed to me.

    I think SMH a very intelligent and capable woman who won’t defer to religious opinion. She just won't accept her lowly place as ordained by the men of god. Perhaps it is that which annoys you.

    ReplyDelete